Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

CNN to lay off hundreds of staff

RT | January 23, 2025

CNN is planning to axe hundreds of its 3,500 workforce as soon as Thursday, as the US media multinational eyes reorientation towards global digital audiences, people familiar with the matter have told CNBC.

The unit of Warner Bros Discovery is reportedly rearranging its TV production while expanding digital subscription offers. The layoffs are projected to help the news organization reduce production costs and consolidate teams, CNBC claimed on Wednesday, citing anonymous sources.

The cuts are not expected to affect the CNN’S most recognizable names, the sources said, adding that several shows that are currently produced in New York or Washington could move to Atlanta amid cost reduction.

The multinational introduced a digital paywall last October, when it began charging a monthly fee of $3.99 from its frequent users.

NBC News, owned by Comcast, the world’s fourth-largest broadcaster by revenue, is also planning job cuts this week, CNBC noted, citing sources familiar with the situation, who specified that the layoffs will be well under 50 staff.

CNBC noted that the current news media landscape is in transition as watching linear TV is becoming less popular, with more people consuming their news on streaming services and through social media.

The Washington Post announced earlier this month that it would dismiss around 4% of its workforce, or fewer than 100 employees, in an effort to reduce costs, as the newspaper struggles with increasing losses. In November, the Associated Press announced plans to slash some 8% of its workforce as the news agency seeks to update operations and products.

January 23, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | Leave a comment

It’s not climate change: The truth about the California wildfires (& all wildfires)

January 21, 2025 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

The Budapest Memorandum: The Fake Narrative Supporting a Long War in Ukraine

By Professor Glenn Diesen | January 21, 2025

Narratives have been constructed to support a long war in Ukraine. For example, the narrative of an “unprovoked invasion” was important to criminalise diplomacy as the premise suggests negotiations would reward Russian military adventurism and embolden further Russian aggression. Meanwhile, NATO escalating the war creates costs that outweigh the benefits to Russia.

Russia’s violation of the Budapest Memorandum is a key narrative that supports a long war. It is constantly referenced as a reason why Russia cannot be trusted to abide by a peace agreement, and why the war must keep going. The argument is that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees for its territorial integrity. Russia’s breach of this agreement suggests it cannot be trusted and that the only reliable security guarantees must come from NATO membership. Furthermore, the West must continue to send weapons to Ukraine to honour the security guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum.

In February 2022, a few days before the Russian invasion, Zelensky referred to the Budapest Memorandum: “Ukraine has received security guarantees for abandoning the world’s third nuclear capability. We don’t have that weapon. We also have no security.” The Budapest Memorandum was again used by Zelensky in October 2024 to support the argument that Ukraine must either have NATO or nukes: “Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons, and then it will be a defence for us, or Ukraine will be in NATO”.

This article presents facts and arguments that challenge the false narrative of the Budapest Memorandum, which aims to delegitimise diplomacy. Criticising the narrative of the Budapest Memorandum does not entail “legitimising” Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which is a common tactic to smear and censor criticism against the narratives supporting a long war.

No Security Guarantees and No Ukrainian Nuclear Weapons

The Budapest Memorandum does not offer any security “guarantees”, rather it provides “assurances”. Former US Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer, who was part of the US negotiation team in 1994, argues the US was explicit that “guarantees” should not be confused with “assurances”. Pifer also confirms this was understood by both the Ukrainians and the Russians:

“American officials decided the assurances would have to be packaged in a document that was not legally-binding. Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations wanted a legal treaty that would have to be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. State Department lawyers thus took careful interest in the actual language, in order to keep the commitments of a political nature. U.S. officials also continually used the term “assurances” instead of “guarantees,” as the latter implied a deeper, even legally-binding commitment of the kind that the United States extended to its NATO allies”.[1]

Ukraine also did not have any nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons in question were former Soviet nuclear weapons that were stationed in Ukraine, but under the control of Moscow. Kiev did not and could not operate or maintain these weapons, which is usually left out of the narrative. Furthermore, in the Minsk agreement of 1991, Ukraine had already committed itself to the “destruction of nuclear weapons” on its territory.[2]

The Not-So-Sacred Memorandum

In December 1994, the US, UK, and Russia met in the Hungarian capital and offered security commitments in three separate agreements with Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. These three countries agreed to relinquish the nuclear weapons that had been left on their territory after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in return, the US, UK and Russia offered commitments to not undermine their security. The Budapest Memorandum outlined key principles such as “to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind”, and to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”. In a display of cherry-picking, NATO countries constantly ignore the first commitment but constantly refer to the second commitment.

The US claims its use of economic coercion and violation of Ukrainian sovereignty was in support of democracy and human rights as opposed to advancing its own interests. Thus, the US freed itself from its commitments under the Budapest Memorandum. Under the so-called rules-based international order, the US and its allies claim the prerogative to exempt themselves from international law, norms and agreements under the guise of supporting humanitarian law and liberal democratic norms.[3]

When the US imposed sanctions on Belarus in 2013, Washington explicitly stated that the Budapest Memorandum was not legally binding and that US actions were exempted as the US was allegedly promoting human rights:

“Although the Memorandum is not legally binding, we take these political commitments seriously and do not believe any U.S. sanctions, whether imposed because of human rights or non-proliferation concerns, are inconsistent with our commitments to Belarus under the Memorandum or undermine them. Rather, sanctions are aimed at securing the human rights of Belarusians and combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other illicit activities, not at gaining any advantage for the United States”.[4]

The Western-backed coup in 2014 had been an even more blatant violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. The West interfered in the domestic affairs of Ukraine, imposed economic sanctions, and finally toppled the Ukrainian president to pull the country into NATO’s orbit. The commitments under the Budapest Memorandum were cast aside as the West claimed to support a “democratic revolution”, despite being an unconstitutional coup that did not even enjoy majority support from the Ukrainians and only a small minority of Ukrainians supported NATO membership.

International law imposes rules and mutual constraints that limit foreign policy flexibility, but in return deliver reciprocity and thus predictability. Once the West freed itself from mutual constraints in the Budapest Memorandum, Russia also abandoned it. US Ambassador Jack Matlock who participated in negotiating an end to the Cold War, questions the validity of the Budapest Memorandum after the coup in 2014. According to Matlock, the principle in international law of rebus sic stantibus means that agreements should be upheld “provided things remain the same”. Matlock argues that Russia “strictly observed its obligations in the Budapest Memorandum for 13 years” even as NATO expanded towards its borders, although the coup of 2014 created “a radically different international situation”. Matlock thus concludes that Russia was “entitled to ignore the earlier agreement”.[5]

Learning the right lessons

An honest assessment of why the Budapest Memorandum collapsed is important to assess how new agreements can be improved. NATO’s demand for hegemony in Europe and rejection of a common European security architecture inevitably led to the collapse of common agreements as the West would no longer accept the principle of mutual constraints and obligations. Liberal hegemony entailed that the West could exempt itself from international law and agreements, while Russia would still abide by them. The narrative of Ukrainian nuclear weapons, security guarantees, and ignoring the US and UK violation of the Budapest Memorandum serves the purpose of sowing distrust in any future security agreements with Russia. A mutually beneficial peace is possible if we first return to the truth.

[1] S. Pifer, 2011. The Trilater Proce The United States, Ukraine, Russia and Nuclear Weapons, Foreign Policy at Brookings, Arms Control Series, Paper 6, May 2011, p.17. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/05_trilateral_process_pifer.pdf

[2] Agreement on Strategic Forces Concluded between the 11 members of the Commonwealth of Independent States on December 30, 1991. https://www.bits.de/NRANEU/START/documents/strategicforces91.htm

[3] G. Diesen, ‘The Case for Dismantling the Rules-Based International Order, Substack, 23 December 2024.

[4] US Embassy in Belarus, ‘Belarus: Budapest Memorandum’, U.S. Embassy in Minsk, 12 April 2013.

[5] J. Matlock, ‘Ambassador Jack Matlock on Ukraine, Russia, and the West’s Mistakes’, Nuova Rivista Storica

January 21, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , | Leave a comment

Failed State America. Joe Biden’s absolute destruction of freedom of speech

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 20, 2025

Sometimes the internet seems to be overbrimming with video clips showing hilarious examples of what a failed state actually looks like. One of the most common is MPs, or ‘deputies’ actually fighting in their own parliaments against one another. The irony of these clips is that they are usually uploaded by westerners who use to them as a tool to boost or gentrify the reality of western countries’ democratic models.

But no more.

Thanks to Joe Biden’s genocidal maniacs club, the last days of his rule gave us a gem in the form of a press conference where the limit of just how America is anything but a functioning democracy was stretched to breaking point in what appeared to both be deeply sad yet comical at the same time.

As the odious Anthony Blinken gave his patronizing speech to the so-called journalists amassed before him which felt a little like an aristocrat who had gathered the servants in the library to congratulate them on finding an item of lost jewelry of her ladyship’s, we witnessed in real time what America and what these State Department’s press briefings really are: a fraud.

Blinken thanked those present for asking difficult questions, when in fact, none had really been asked in 4 years. Why? Because that is not part of the unwritten rules of how these press briefings work. But the moment he had mentioned the “difficult questions” he was, perhaps appropriately, delivered a series of difficult questions by the Jewish American journalist Max Blumenthal. What was not so surprising was how none of those questions were answered as Blinken, being a smart operator, knew if he kept composed and didn’t rise to the bait it would probably anger Blumenthal even more allowing the tirade to look on camera at least like a rant which had got out of control. Seconds passed and Blumenthal was ushered away by officials which he didn’t offer any resistance to. Moments passed before the veteran Arab journalist Sam Husseini also asked more difficult questions to an increasingly startled Blinken before we see the extent of how far America has abandoned its own free speech doctrine which it used to espouse to the rest of the world: Husseini was actually physically removed by overweight, armed police officers who you can see quite clearly feel uncomfortable about what they are doing, which most people would associate with a tin pot West African country’s ruling junta and not the American government at a press conference.

But the really shocking part of this story was yet to come: the absolute refusal by colleagues in the press room to even verbally object will have stunned journalists all over the world. It provokes many questions about journalism and what these individuals in the room think they are actually doing. We were given though a clue to quite how far journalism has died in the West and been replaced by a cheaper, easy wipe brand called ‘pseudo journalism’ – where actors take one function of journalists but who effectively work for the ruling elite rather than previously for the masses who used to fund the model by buying the actual publications. CNN reporting of the fiasco was very telling. They lost no time putting the boot into Blumenthal, who, naturally they must despise as he functions as a real journalist and they have long forgotten what this entails years ago, opting for the new model of fake news operator. They referred to Blumenthal as an “activist” – a typical slur from big media to individual journalists who carry out stellar work.

The truth about this incident is that such press conferences at the state department or indeed in the European Commission in Brussels are entirely staged. They are a theatre concocted by the elite and the press themselves as part of a dirty deal whereby the journalists ask the softball questions which allow the top figures to deliver the prepared spiel. The so-called journalists sign up to this and in return get access to individuals and scoops – although it’s important to note that the scoops are nearly always new items which serve the state’s purpose. It’s a game which has been going on for a long time and the humble masses don’t understand how they are being taken for a ride by the magicians’ allusion of something which might look credible. In these press gatherings some journalists are even asked to present certain questions which are even suggested by those holding the conference, something I witnessed myself a lot in Brussels.

It was not that the questions put to Blinken were so harsh, or even unconventional. The point is that both Blumenthal and Husseini broke the house rules when they went rogue and did what most people would view to be the role of real journalists: ask unscripted questions. Look what happens when journalist do this. We are treated to a debacle which we would expect to see in the global south, or certainly in Nazi Germany in the 30s. And this is America?

The cat is out of the bag. The whole world can see now how America has lost all its links with the democratic model and become and autocracy, run, financed and ruled by Israel’s cash. Netanyahu and his cronies must have had a really good laugh watching those journalists being removed like that. Presumably their press accreditations will be removed and certainly the worry that both of them will have is that they now mysteriously find themselves being investigated for tax irregularities, theft, fraud or even having child porn on their computers. Journalists like Blumenthal are the biggest threat to the deep state as they will never be part of the establishment and therefore will always be the most dangerous guy to tackle. The one who has nothing to lose is your biggest threat. I don’t imagine Trump and his cabal will be any kinder to him despite The Grayzone taking a more grown-up approach to Russia and how the Ukraine war is reported, as opposed to CNN’s stenographic reproduction of the State Department’s narrative, seasoned by fake news on occasion.

The real enemy for western elites is the feral truth. All pretense of a functioning democracy were eradicated in a matter of minutes with this press conference calamity which has now replaced those MPs in that central European country throwing chairs at one another in their own parliament. Great job, Joe.

January 21, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | 2 Comments

The whitewashing of Western crimes in Syria

By Sonja van den Ende | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 18, 2025

After the fall of Syria and the partial collapse of the Axis of Resistance, a predictable smear campaign has been launched in Western media, which, like for Russia, is based on distortion and lies.

It is a well-oiled Western psyops campaign to make the public believe that after Hitler, Bashar al-Assad was a feared dictator, just like they do with Putin and, before that, Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein.

The world was surprised when, on December 8, 2024, the most feared terrorists took over the old Syria, a semi-secular state form, and immediately turned it into a caliphate.

But for the American imperial planners, their European allies, and their terrorist proxies, including those in Ukraine, there was no surprise. They knew about it. The NATO-sponsored terrorist militia was trained by the CIA in Idlib, and provided with drones by Ukraine, drones that are produced in Ukraine, from semi-finished products from a company in the Netherlands called Metinvest B.V.

Large parts of the Syrian army did not defect, as the Western media and so-called experts claim. About 9,000 soldiers are still held captive in the Syrian desert, or in the Sednaya prison, held by the terrorists.

Not only the terrorists but the American army is in charge everywhere in Syria. American rulers secretly prepared for the occupation of Syria, as they did with Iraq. They primed the terrorists in Idlib for the final offensive with Operation Dawn of Freedom.

The operation included the Turkish-financed and supported so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA), which falls under the umbrella of the U.S., also known as the Syrian National Army. As early as 2016, Turkey began to assemble a new coalition of so-called Syrian rebel groups, including many former FSA fighters, in an attempt to create a more cohesive and effective opposition force. This coalition consists of the terrorists most feared by the Syrian people, who have been massacring civilians since 2011. Among others, the Syrian National Army includes Chinese Uyghurs, notorious for their brutality among head-choppers.

Little known by the Western public is that the so-called Syrian National Army was active in Karabakh during the 2020 war between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Turkey provided military support to Azerbaijan by supplying the terrorists of the Syrian National Army. This proxy army of international mercenaries, controlled by the U.S. and Turkey, has been fighting in Ukraine for the NATO-backed Kiev regime. The most brutal of its senior members is Abu al Shishani, who has been hiding in Ukraine for years – despite his U.S. handlers declaring him dead in 2017.

Of course, the Western terrorist sponsors wash their hands of blood. After all, there are supposed to be no real U.S. “boots on the ground” in Syria, they will argue, but there is an army base coordinating the terrorists who fight for them. The same applies to Turkey.

Turkey has two faces: it is a member of NATO while trying to realize, under Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a political aspiration for a great Ottoman empire based on Islam. Some say it is utopian or a lie, but it is not. The Syrian people know this very well; for 14 years, this has been going on and, unfortunately, has come true.

Then there is the other “superpower” in the region, the tiny Zionist apartheid project called Israel. No one, not even the International Atomic Energy Agency, knows what its nuclear weapons arsenal is, and it has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Since 2022, Israel has become a fully-fledged fascist regime, the most ultra-right government in the history of the colonialist project, which carries out the agenda of the settlers. These settlers are dangerous terrorists and, like ISIS (Daesh), use religion, racism and murder as weapons against all other beliefs and opinions. Yet the United States and its European lackeys continue to brazenly back the Zionist rogue state. The U.S. has supplied it with $20 billion in military aid over the past year despite the genocide in Gaza.

One of the seven political parties that govern Israel is the Otzma Yehudit Party. This party advocates for the deportation of those they consider to be the “enemies of Israel”, such as the Arabs. The party has been described in the international press and also in Israel itself as an extremist, ultra-nationalist, fascist, and racist organization.

One of the supporters of this party is Daniella Weiss, who watched with her extremist settler friends as “Gazans” were murdered on a boat off the coast of Gaza and cheered. She and her group are invited to the inauguration of Donald Trump, who himself is a Zionist and his entire incoming administration consists of nothing but Zionists.

After the attack of the U.S. and Turkish-sponsored terrorists in the north of Syria, Israel attacked the south, in Dara’a, which was agreed upon, planned and coordinated with the U.S. and Turkey. Dams and bridges were blown up, and large-scale bombardments on the Syrian army were carried out. Large parts of the army were captured and imprisoned, left in the desert, or the former prison Sednaya. They surrendered; the superior force was too great. Remnant army forces, mainly from the “Tiger Forces”, are fighting the terrorists in the hills around Hama and Latakia.

The Western media was there suspiciously quickly, after a day or so, visiting Sednaya for photo-ops. All kinds of so-called Western journalists arrived in Syria, mainly to promote the narrative that the terrible regime was gone, Syria was “free”, and Assad had turned the former Sednaya prison into a “human slaughterhouse”.

Many fake stories, especially by CNN, about so-called prisoners who were hung on ropes, photos were distributed, which later turned out to be photos from a museum in Iraq. There were also stories about prisoners in underground dungeons, yet no proof of this has ever been found.

Certainly, everything was prepared for the “journalists”; they were already waiting in Jordan, primed to cross into Syria when the “surprise fall” happened.

Years ago, there was a report made by Amnesty International called the “Slaughter House”, but now, in 2025, no evidence has been found for this fake report. What has become clear is that a large number of the prisoners were ISIS (Daesh) members, who have now been released and are imposing a terror regime on minorities such as the Alawites, Christians, and Kurds.

The West is now professing innocence and wants good relations with what they call the new government. All kinds of Western politicians have visited the terrorist leader Abu Mohammed al-Golani. He is dressed up in a new suit and his beard is trimmed. The West wants to send the Syrian refugees back from Europe. There are also flight connections again. The airport of Damascus is changed into a mosque. Is the new caliphate going to send its terrorists on holiday? To do what? Commit attacks, perhaps? Russia, in particular, must be careful, especially after the mass murder at the Crocus City shopping complex last March when 145 people were killed by Daesh-linked terrorists. Many terrorists in the new Syria are from the Caucasus and have years of experience.

Transferring terrorists to Idlib after the fall of Aleppo in 2016 was never a good idea. History has proven it.

The U.S. and its European partners want to freeze the conflict in Donbass, which can result in the same problem as in Syria. That was the biggest mistake by Assad and the former government, which took too humane a position on terrorists.

January 19, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pharma Spends Billions on Drug Ads, Fears Trump Administration Will Try to Ban Them

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 16, 2025

Drug companies report their biggest concern with the incoming Trump administration is the fear that the government will try to ban direct-to-consumer drug ads, according to a new report from The Lever that examines the industry practice.

Companies said such a ban would “almost certainly” lead to a drop in drug sales, according to a recent report by industry research firm Intron Health, which claims the return on investment for drug ads is as high as 100%-500%, depending on the drug.

The U.S. and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow drug companies to advertise directly to consumers.

When President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.), was running as a presidential candidate, he promised to ban the ads through an executive order on his first day in office.

When he tapped Kennedy, founder and former chairman of Children’s Health Defense, to lead HHS, Trump criticized drugmakers and Big Food companies, saying they “have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation.”

If confirmed, Kennedy would oversee the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which sets policies on direct-to-consumer advertising by pharma.

“We see this as the biggest imminent threat from RFK and the new Trump administration,” the Intron report’s authors wrote.

The Lever predicted the chances the administration can successfully ban these ads are “slim,” but said Big Pharma’s reaction shows how dependent the industry — and the media conglomerates it supports — has become on advertising drugs to consumers.

Critics say the ads “misinform patients and underemphasize treatment risks,” in part because they don’t provide all the information a patient needs to make an informed decision.

The ads also lead to unnecessary drug prescriptions, which The Lever said raises healthcare costs for consumers and taxpayers.

Most heavily advertised drugs don’t provide meaningful therapeutic benefit

Direct-to-consumer marketing in the U.S. began in 1981, with limited success at first because the FDA required drugmakers to list all possible side effects in the ads, according to The Lever’s short history of the practice.

Under the Clinton administration in 1997, the FDA relaxed its policies, allowing drugmakers to list only “major risks” in their ads, paving the way for a new and massive wave of television advertising for prescription drugs.

Spending on ads shot up 330% between 1996 and 2005, reaching $4.2 billion by 2004, and continued to grow after that.

Between 2016 and 2018, drugmakers spent $17.8 billion on ads for more than 550 drugs. Most of these drugs treat chronic medical conditions like arthritis, diabetes and depression.

According to a 2021 report by the congressional watchdog Government Accountability Office, 60% of the $560 billion that Medicare and its beneficiaries spent on drugs went to the advertised drugs.

The Lever claimed there are benefits to such advertising. Citing a paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, it suggested that advertising can “somewhat” educate consumers and extend drug care to “undertreated patients.”

However, the report said advertising also increases the number of patients that request an advertised medication and the likelihood their prescriber will give it to them, whether they need it or not.

The ads also lead to greater use of higher-cost drugs over generics, even when those drugs offer no greater benefit.

The Lever cites a 2023 study in JAMA Network Open that assessed the “therapeutic value” — whether a drug led to improved clinical outcomes — of the top 73 most heavily advertised drugs. The study found that only 1 in 4 advertised drugs had a high therapeutic value.

Study author Neeraj Patel told The Lever :

“Many consumers might assume that the drugs they see all the time on TV are for cutting-edge therapies that are groundbreaking advances over the other treatment options on the market …

“Our study suggests that assumption is usually wrong: Heavily advertised drugs often do not necessarily provide meaningful therapeutic benefits as opposed to other therapeutic options.”

Obstacles to ending direct-to-consumer ads

The Lever said it is “relatively unlikely” Kennedy will be able to ban the ads, partly because efforts to merely restrict drug advertising have been defeated in courts on First Amendment grounds.

The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal made similar predictions. However, The Defender reported that a wider field of experts disagree on whether such a ban is legally or constitutionally feasible.

During Trump’s first administration, a federal judge blocked an HHS rule requiring drugmakers to include prices in their TV commercials, saying it exceeded the agency’s statutory authority.

“Kennedy could continue to push for cost transparency or require FDA review of all drug ads,” The Lever noted, “but any such reform attempts would likely be slow-going and challenged by the industry.”

Big Pharma’s lobbying arm, which spent $294 million lobbying last year on issues like drug ads, is also an obstacle.

TV and radio broadcasters are also expected to fight a drug ad ban because Big Pharma is one of the top advertising spenders. Last year, the National Association of Broadcaster industry lobbying group spent $8.8 million lobbying on issues including direct-to-consumer advertising, according to lobbying records.

Prescription drugs accounted for 30.7% of ad minutes across evening news programs on ABC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and NBC last year through Dec. 15, according to the WSJ.

The Lever proposed less drastic measures to “mitigate” some of the negative impacts of this advertising rather than banning it altogether.

For example, the FDA could require pharmaceutical companies to include disclaimers about the effectiveness of the drugs versus other drugs already on the market. Or drug companies could offer a “Drug Facts Box” label, that would provide one-page summaries of the risks and benefits of new drugs.

The agency could also extend its requirement, instituted in 2023, that TV and radio drug ads use “consumer-friendly” and “understandable” language to disclose potential side effects, applying it to over-the-counter medicines, dietary supplements or other products, which also account for hundreds of millions of advertising dollars.

“Even if all of those drug ads filling the TV and computer screens aren’t likely to go away soon, advocates hold out hope that regulators could at least require them to be more informative and comprehensible,” The Lever reported.

Related articles in The Defender:

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

January 18, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump unable to end Ukrainian conflict – media

By Lucas Leiroz | January 16, 2025

Western media apparently does not believe in Donald Trump’s ability to end the war in Ukraine. After months of desperate campaigning against the US president-elect, accusing him of being “pro-Russian” and neglecting the Ukraine issue, Western mainstream outlets are now claiming he never had such ability or intention, and that his campaign promise was simply “bluster.”

Reuters published an article on January 15 claiming that Trump’s promise to end the conflict between Ukraine and Russia “in 24 hours” was a bluff with no basis in reality. According to the news agency, people close to the president-elect said that any negotiations or agreements are still long away, and that an end to hostilities is not possible in the near future.

“Advisers to President-elect Donald Trump now concede that the Ukraine war will take months or even longer to resolve, a sharp reality check on his biggest foreign policy promise – to strike a peace deal on his first day in the White House. Two Trump associates, who have discussed the war in Ukraine with the president-elect, told Reuters they were looking at a timeline of months to resolve the conflict, describing the Day One promises as a combination of campaign bluster and a lack of appreciation of the intractability of the conflict and the time it takes to staff up a new administration,” Reuters’ article reads.

The assessment coincides with some recent statements in which Trump has expressed frustration at not being able to advance his diplomatic plans before his inauguration. He repeatedly said he plans to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin “long before” six months of his presidency, but at the same time has expressed some skepticism about the future of the conflict. For example, Trump recently said that it would be easier to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza than in Ukraine – which proved true, given the end of hostilities between Israel and Hamas announced on January 15.

“I think, actually, more difficult is going to be the Russia-Ukraine situation [than Gaza] (…) I see that as more difficult. (…) I don’t think it’s appropriate that I meet (Putin) until after the 20th, which I hate because every day people are being – many, many young people are being killed,” Trump said.

Reuters’ journalists, citing their sources, claim that despite the apparent impossibility of achieving a quick peace, there is a consensus among members of Trump’s team on the need to take some emergency measures, such as canceling Ukraine’s accession process to NATO, as well as trying to “freeze the battle lines”. In addition, Trump’s advisers warn the president to demand “security guarantees” for Ukraine, which they consider to be an important and necessary step to create the conditions for a peace agreement.

“While the exact contours of a Trump peace plan are still being mulled, Trump’s advisers generally support taking the possibility of NATO membership for Ukraine off the table, at least for the foreseeable future, and freezing the current battle lines. Most high-ranking Trump advisers also support giving Ukraine a material security guarantee, such as the creation of a demilitarized zone patrolled by European troops. So far, the Trump team’s attempts to end the war have proceeded in fits and starts, underlining the degree to which campaign promises can run into the reality of complex diplomatic negotiations,” the article adds.

In fact, this all seems like a real waste of time on the part of Trump’s advisers. Whether Ukraine’s NATO membership process continues or ends does not change anything in the conflict, since it is already certain that Kiev will not be allowed to join. It is a consensus among Republicans and Democrats that NATO should not admit Ukraine as a member, but rather use it as a proxy in the war. Although Biden and the Democrats show a supposed “support” for such membership, this seems to be a mere rhetorical tool, without any practical meaning.

In the same sense, it is pointless to talk about “freezing the lines” or “giving guarantees to Ukraine”, since only the Russians can decide on these matters. Moscow will not freeze the front lines at least until all of its reintegrated territories are liberated and fully protected by demilitarized border zones.

Moreover, it is not Kiev that is in a position to demand “guarantees”, since Russia is the aggressed side in this war, with the special military operation having begun in 2022 precisely as a response both to NATO expansion and to the massacre of Russians that Kiev has been carrying out since 2014. The position to demand security guarantees belongs to the Russians, not to Ukrainians or Westerners.

In the end, it seems that the Western media is beginning to admit what analysts have been saying since the elections: Trump’s promise to end the war was never feasible. It is not the US that is in a position to demand an end to hostilities, since only the winning side can end a conflict. In fact, the war will end only when Moscow assesses that its strategic objectives have been achieved.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

January 16, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

MAINSTREAM STOKES FEAR OVER BIRD FLU

The HighWire with Del Bigtree | January 10, 2025

Legacy media and world health agencies continue to ratchet up the bird flu fear factor, despite the fact not a single human death has been caused from the virus. With mere days left for the Biden Administration in office and stockpiles of outdated H1N1 vaccines at the ready, skeptics are concerned it’s not just coincidence.

January 14, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | | Leave a comment

‘Monster’ Fauci should be jailed – Joe Rogan

RT | January 10, 2025

Hollywood star Mel Gibson and presenter Joe Rogan have claimed that former chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci should face prosecution, as they discussed his influence on the American healthcare system over the years. The popular American podcast host labelled the ex-government official a “monster.”

Fauci became the public face of the federal government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic both under President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden. The imposition of restrictive measures and the scientist’s reported involvement in suppressing the theory that the virus may have originated from US-funded gain-of-function research in China have made Fauci a controversial figure.

Gibson was a guest on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast on Thursday. Both men wondered how Fauci was “still walking around,” or “at least free” after his actions during the pandemic.

They were discussing the 2021 book by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. titled ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’. The author, a healthcare campaigner turned politician, described Fauci as an official in cahoots with big pharmaceutical corporations, who had abused his power for decades. The HIV/AIDS epidemic in the US was one of the main topics of the book.

”That book is an accurate depiction of what Anthony Fauci did during the AIDS crisis, which probably was an AZT crisis,” Rogan claimed.

He was referring to the antiretroviral medication azidothymidine. It was the first to be used en masse in the late 1980s to suppress HIV and had serious side effects. Kennedy claimed that Fauci, in his role as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), improperly endorsed AZT and downplayed its side effects while undermining possible alternative treatments.

”I drove up to San Francisco and I listened to it and I had road rage,” Gibson said, recalling his reaction to the book.

”If this is true, what the f**k is going on and how is that monster still loose?” Rogan asked. Meanwhile, the outgoing Biden administration is considering “giving him a full pardon – it’s like f**king crazy.”

Fauci’s name came up as the two were criticizing mainstream media for its “complicity” in protecting for-profit healthcare in the US. Gibson recalled how Rogan was attacked by news outlets for taking the drug ivermectin after testing positive for Covid-19 in 2021.

The medicine is widely used to treat parasites in humans in Africa. But the media dismissed it as a “horse dewormer” – the drug’s usual application in the US – as they urged the public to vaccinate against Covid-19.

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Louisiana Man Who Had Bird Flu Dies — But Cause of Death Is Unclear

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 7, 2025

A Louisiana man in his 60s who was hospitalized with the first severe case of bird flu in the U.S. has died, the Louisiana Department of Health announced Monday. According to STAT News, it’s the first bird flu-related death in the U.S. — and all of North America.

The man, who has not been named, was older than 65 and had underlying medical conditions not specified in the health department’s announcement. He was hospitalized with severe respiratory illness after contracting the H5N1 bird flu virus last month from exposure to wild birds and a backyard flock of birds.

Louisiana health officials didn’t provide details about when the man died or what treatment he received. According to the health department, no other bird flu cases have been identified in Louisiana.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) maintains its position that bird flu poses a low risk to public health.

In a statement published by The Washington Post, the CDC said, “While tragic, a death from H5N1 bird flu in the United States is not unexpected because of the known potential for infection with these viruses to cause severe illness and death.”

According to STAT News, 67 cases of bird flu have been recorded in the U.S. since last year. The Post reported that in almost all cases, the patients experienced “mild illnesses” such as respiratory symptoms or pink eye, and all except the Louisiana man recovered. Most who became ill are poultry or dairy farmworkers.

Media reporting on bird flu ‘reminiscent of the fearmongering’ during COVID

Mainstream media has widely attributed the Louisiana man’s death to bird flu, but experts who spoke with The Defender struck a note of caution.

“We do not have details on the type of hospital he was in for many weeks, treatment received, and what the ultimate cause of death was in his case,” cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough told The Defender.

“This is not the same as saying the patient died of bird flu. [The Louisiana Health Department] conspicuously stops short of making that claim. If the health department reporting the case is not willing to declare bird flu to be the cause of death, it is irresponsible for anyone else to draw this conclusion,” internal medicine physician Dr. Clayton J. Baker told The Defender.

Baker said such messaging on the part of some media outlets “is reminiscent of the fearmongering that was so prevalent during COVID-19, where numerous patients who actually died ‘with COVID’ were classified as ‘COVID deaths.’”

Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher told The Defender that, because there are few details about the Louisiana man’s death and the underlying conditions he previously experienced, “it’s entirely possible that this patient died because of his other conditions, with bird flu infection pushing him over the edge.”

“Regardless, we can expect the biopharmaceutical complex to use this case as a tool to fear-monger and push for bird flu vaccinations,” Hulscher said.

Speaking on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Dec. 29, 2024, Dr. Leana Wen, the former commissioner of the Baltimore City Health Department and a professor of public health at George Washington University, called for more testing — and for the Biden administration to approve the bird flu vaccine before leaving office.

“There actually is a vaccine developed already against H5N1,” Wen said. “The Biden administration has contracted with manufacturers to make almost 5 million doses of the vaccine. However, they have not asked the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] to authorize the vaccine.”

Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, questioned the need for a bird flu vaccine. “Why would you use a vaccine in humans that has not been shown to work or be safe, for a disease that has only killed one elderly sick person and does not spread person-to-person?” Nass asked?

In October 2024, New York City health officials held a tabletop simulation of a bird flu outbreak.

Existing bird flu vaccines not designed for current bird flu variant

According to CNN, a genetic analysis the CDC performed last month determined that the virus that infected the Louisiana man mutated, enhancing its ability to infect the upper airways of humans.

“Those same changes were not seen in the birds the person had been exposed to, officials said, indicating that they had developed in the person after they were infected,” CNN reported.

According to the Post, “Bird flu viruses normally attach to a cell receptor that is rare in human upper airways,” making it difficult for most strains of bird flu to spread from person to person.

The mutated version of the virus found in the Louisiana man does not appear to have spread. “Genetic analysis of the virus in wild birds and poultry in Louisiana, including poultry on the patient’s property, and in other parts of the United States, did not detect similar viral changes,” the Post reported.

According to the Post, “Such changes would be more concerning … if they were also found in animals or within a few days of the start of symptoms, because that would suggest the virus was already acquiring these mutations.”

Nass said that the “longer a virus is able to reproduce inside a body, the more mutations you will find, and some are sure to improve its ability to infect human cells. The same thing occurred with COVID. It had no clinical significance then, either,” Nass added.

CNN reported that the Louisiana man was infected with the D1.1 clade of the bird flu virus — a strain that is currently circulating in wild birds and poultry, but not in dairy cattle that have been infected with bird flu. In November 2024, a teenager in the Canadian province of British Columbia was infected with this strain but recovered.

“Since we only have the Louisiana elder and the British Columbia teen who have come down with this particular strain of bird flu, it is not possible to say anything about the clinical illness, the propensity to infect others due to contact with wild birds, or even the risk of death,” Nass said.

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender the mutation seen in the Louisiana man may be man-made.

“The type of mutation seen in the man’s H5N1 isolates is reminiscent of research that is being done by Yoshihiro Kawaoka, Ph.D. at the University of Wisconsin and Jessica Belser, Ph.D. at the CDC. Both researchers are attempting to humanize the virus so it can spread via respiratory droplets,” Hooker said.

Kawaoka and Belser are known for their involvement with gain-of-function research, where the transmissibility and virulence of pathogens are enhanced.

Dr. Richard Bartlett, an emergency room director and former Texas Department of Health and Human Services advisory council member, told The Defender that existing bird flu vaccines have not been designed for the D1.1 clade. He said:

“My understanding is that this is a different clade than bird flu vaccines that have already been purchased by governments around the world. In other words, they missed the mark. With vaccines it’s all or nothing. The winning treatment strategy will be early treatment.

“The question is, will the National Institutes of Health, CDC, World Health Organization [WHO] and government leaders — that are not doctors or scientists — repeat their mistakes? Will they push one option only? Vaccinate or bust? Are they slow learners? In 2009, we had the H1N1 pandemic with a highly contagious and very dangerous flu virus. Not one person was vaccinated, and the pandemic was over in nine months.”

According to the WHO, there have been nearly 900 human bird flu cases worldwide since 2003, and roughly half of those patients died. But according to CNN, “Because severe cases are more likely to be reported than mild ones, mild illnesses probably aren’t being factored into that figure.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | Leave a comment

No rape allegations filed from 7 October, reveals Israeli prosecutor

MEMO | January 6, 2025

Israeli authorities have admitted that no allegations of rape or sexual assault have been filed from the 7 October cross-border infiltration by Palestinian resistance factions, despite extensive investigations.

Moran Gaz, a former lead prosecutor in Israel’s Southern District Prosecutor’s Office and member of Team 7.10, disclosed the findings in an interview with Ynet. The team is responsible for cases involving captured Palestinians linked to the attacks.

Gaz stated that her department has found no evidence of sexual violence. “In the end, we don’t have any complainants. What was presented in the media compared to what will eventually come together will be entirely different,” she said.

Moreover, women’s rights organisations contacted by her office also reported no cases brought to their attention. “We approached women’s rights organisations and asked for cooperation. They told us that no one had approached them,” Gaz added.

Israel’s unsubstantiated claims of mass rape by Palestinian resistance fighters have dominated global headlines, but similar accusations by Palestinians against Israeli occupation forces have received minimal attention.

In March 2023, United Nations experts had already debunked similar allegations, concluding they were either unverified or proven false. Similarly, other gruesome claims, such as babies being beheaded or burned in ovens, were widely discredited but continued to circulate in political rhetoric.

Despite the lack of evidence, Gaz has maintained hardline views, claiming that those detained in connection with the 7 October attacks “have no right to live.”

The absence of evidence has fueled skepticism about Israeli narratives surrounding the 7 October attacks, often employed to justify Israel’s ongoing military onslaught in Gaza.

The Israeli occupation army has continued a genocidal war on Gaza that has killed more than 45,800 people, mostly women and children, since 7 October 2023, despite a UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire.

In November, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and former Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Israel also faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its deadly war on the enclave.

January 6, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

Climate Bombshell: New Evidence Reveals 30 Year Global Drop in Hurricane Frequency and Power

By Chris Morrison | The Daily Sceptic | January 4, 2025

Last month a small but powerful cyclone named Chido made landfall in Mayotte before sweeping into Mozambique, causing considerable damage and leading to the loss of around 100 lives. Days after the tragedy, the Green Blob-funded Carbon Brief noted that scientists have “long suggested” that climate change is making cyclones worse in the region, while Blob-funded World Weather Attribution (WWA) at Imperial College London made a near-instant and curiously precise estimate that a Chido-like cyclone was about 40% more likely to happen in 2024 than during the pre-industrial age. Not to be outdone, Green Blob-funded cheerleader the Guardian chipped in with the obligatory “cyclones are getting worse because of the climate emergency”. Almost unnoticed, it seems, among all the Net Zero dooming and grooming was a science paper published during December by Nature that found no increase in the destructive power of cyclones – the generic term for typhoons and hurricanes – in any ocean basin over the last 30 years. In the South Indian basin, the location of cyclone Chido, there was a dramatic decrease in both frequency and duration in recent times.

Reality rarely gets much of a look-in these days when fanatical Net Zero activism is afoot, but the paper, written by a group of Chinese meteorologists, makes its case by considering the facts and the data. The scientists apply a “power dissipation index” (PDI) which they consider superior to single measure indicators since it combines storm intensity, duration and frequency. The graphs below show the cumulative index for tropical cyclones across all ocean basins along with a global indication.

Downward trends in the cumulative PDI can be seen in a number of Pacific regions, while the trend holds steady in the North Atlantic. The southern Indian ocean downward trend is particularly pronounced while the overall global line is also heading in a similar direction.

So why does all this scientific twaddle get written by the  green activists in mainstream media? Much of it arises from the new pseudoscience that claims it can tie individual weather events to human-caused climate change. Press releases peddling climate Armageddon are issued days after a natural disaster and are eagerly reprinted by activist journalists promoting the Net Zero fantasy. The distinguished science writer Roger Pielke Jr. is a fierce critic of this new pseudoscience, which he calls weather attribution alchemy. In a recent Substack post in the aftermath of Chido, he noted that the WWA at Imperial College simply assumes the conclusion that it seeks to prove by accepting that every storm is made stronger because of warmer oceans. Using this explanation, continues Pielke, it is straightforward to conclude that the storm was made more likely due to climate change. Or as Imperial states: “The difference in the storm intensity and likelihood of this storm intensity between the counterfactual climate and today’s climate can be attributed to climate change.”

As the new Chinese paper shows, the matter is not quite so simple. Pielke notes that tropical storms encounter numerous environmental influences such as vertical wind shear and storm-induced ocean surface cooling, even when they remain over warmer waters. “Such complexities mean that simple storyline attribution – warmer oceans predictably mean stronger storms – is inappropriate when used to characterise the behaviour of individual storms,” he argues. Pielke also comes down hard on the statistical evidence backing the WWA claims. Even if storms such as Chido were more likely in the future, it would take a very long time to detect a significant change using the threshold 90% confidence set down by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And by very long time, he means thousands of years.

“Perhaps that is why assumptions are favoured over evidence,” suggests Pielke.

There were plenty of assumptions on display in a now routine end-of-year weather report from the BBC headed: ‘A year of extreme weather that challenged billions.‘ Written by Esme Stallard, it claims that record-breaking heat brought extreme weather including hurricanes and month-long droughts. Pride of place is given to Dr. Friederike Otto, lead of WWA and Senior Lecturer in Climate Science at Imperial, who claimed: “We are living in a dangerous new era – extreme weather caused unrelenting suffering.” “The impacts of fossil fuel warming has never been clear or more devastating than in 2024,” she added.

The redoubtable Paul Homewood is unimpressed with Stallard’s opening line about increasing extreme weather and has filed a complaint with the BBC. Stallard goes on to list a handful of random events, “but fails to provide any evidence that these are anything other than natural events which happen all the time”, states Homewood. “Nor is any evidence provided that such events have been getting more frequent or extreme over time,” he adds.

The BBC story highlighted typhoons in the Philippines as well as hurricane Beryl and stated that such events may be increasing in intensity due to climate change. Official data do not show any evidence of them becoming more powerful over time, notes Homewood. Much play was made of a recent drought in the Amazon, but Homewood points out that the World Bank Climate Portal reveals that rainfall has increased in the area by 5% over the last 30 years. Throughout the report, observes Homewood, the BBC bases its claims on weather attribution computer models. “However, computer models are not evidence, and can be manipulated to provide whatever results are desired. That is why they are widely derided by the wider scientific community,” he states.

For Roger Pielke, extreme weather attributions are “puzzling”. The most charitable explanation for their proliferation is that there is a demand for them, including from many in the media. The demand will be filled by someone, he concludes. “A less charitable explanation is that there is a systematic effort underway to contest and undermine actual climate science, including the assessments of the IPCC, in order to present a picture of reality that is simply false in support of climate advocacy. We might call that pseudo-scientific gaslighting,” he suggests.

January 5, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »